Whether a pro se petitioner's untimely application for an extension of time to file a Supreme Court petition can be excused based on procedural technicalities or equitable considerations

No question identified. : Robert Joyce v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. USAP2 No: 24-931 No: 25-5359 Petitioner’s application for an extension of time Petitioner Robert Joyce’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was denied by the Court on October 14, 2025, and is attached hereto. The Court allowed Petitioner until November 4, 2025, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance within Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court. Petitioner then proceeded to submit an application for an extension of time in order to comply with the Court’s October 14, 2025, order. Petitioner’s application for an extension of time was postmarked on November 3, 2025, and received on November 12, 2025. Petitioner’s application for an extension of time was returned unfiled because the application did not specify the amount of additional time Petitioner required in order to submit a petition that would comply with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court (attached hereto). Petitioner requests an additional 60 days from whatever date the Court deems acceptable and appropriate in order for Petitioner to comply with Rule 33.1. An extension of time is needed by the Petitioner because it is timely and expensive for the petition and